HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022/03/01 - Special Board of Mason County Commissioners
Special Meeting Agenda
' Commission Chambers
411 N 511 St, Shelton,WA 98584
March 1,2022
�<« 6:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order—The Chairperson called the special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Cmmr.Trask led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Roll Call—Present:Present:Commissioner District 1 —Randy Neatherlin;Commissioner District
2—Kevin Shutty;Commissioner District 3—Sharon Trask.
4. Public Hearing continued from January 31,2022 to consider the proposed extension of the Belfair sewer.
Staff:Mark Neary
Mark Neary shared that the Department of Commerce processed the administrative change to revise the
loan from a revenue bond to a general obligation bond. A revenue bond is payable based on fees charged
to individuals within the utility district. The general obligation bond would be financed through.09 funds
and 2nd quarter Real Estate Excise Tax(BEET)funds. Loretta Swanson added that the original scope of
work described a"purple pipe"for reclaimed water to serve the Puget Sound Industrial Center(PSIC)and
included a sewer connection up to Lake Flora Road. The request to revise the scope of work,due to the
design process,is still being processed by legislature to ensure that the intent is still met.
Richard Dickinson shared that Resolution 46-17 clarified that it is 200' from the property line to connect
to the nearest sewer. The goal is to merge all sewer codes into one and to update the County Code. The
multi-family tax incentive will need continued and rate structures updated.
Mark recommended continuing the hearing for at least 30 days to allow staff to gather additional details
necessary for code changes and for the Board to decide on future rates and fees for Belfair. Cmmr. Shutty
added that the hearing will be continued regarding the Belfair sewer extension and issuing a bid. Code
revisions must go through the regular agenda process. Cmmr.Neatherlin shared that originally,to get as
many hookups as possible, it was stretched to 500'. However,this put a large burden on the property
owners. The Commission,to align with other codes,set it at 200'.
QUESTIONS
Brad Carey asked what the negatives are for not moving forward with this project? This could reduce the
monthly rates for the existing 421 connections. 500-1,000 connections could be added with the sewer
extension. Cmmr. Shutty answered that the pros and cons are being discussed and that there is a demand.
Mark clarified that current infrastructure is not paid for,there is existing debt.
Andrew Makar asked how costs will be recaptured from developers and/or intermediary property owners
for the infrastructure under their properties? The best way to reduce risk is to distribute the cost to those
making the most amount of profit. Mark answered there is an existing capital facility charge utility-wide
based on the existing debt for the existing infrastructure. If new debt is taken on,a capital facilities charge
could be implemented for that area that is larger than the$11,300 charged to individuals connecting to the
existing system or developing within that Urban Growth Area(UGA). More customers would mean more
monthly revenue collected and the costs of the system will be spread to a larger group of individuals. The
challenge for the original extension was that only 412 customers signed up and additional development did
not occur which put the County in a position to not have the funds to pay the debt or maintain and operate
the facility. The other"risk mitigator"is changing from the original debt repayment agreement of a
revenue bond backed by rate payers within Belfair. The existing debt is general obligation debt paid for
through revenue from.09 funds and 2°d quarter REET funds. Cmmr.Neatherlin clarified that there is not
something in place to recapture the money.
David Overton asked if the 200' from the trunk lines or the service laterals? How is the current debt being
paid? Are capital facilities charges being held for future capital expansion? Is it correct that the County
has not had a plan to retire debt through certain charges over the last ten years? What is the balance of the
utility fund? Where is the lateral measurement measured from and does it include side sewers? What was
the original capital facilities charge? Mark answered.09 funds and 2°d quarter REET funds are used to
pay off existing debt. Current capital facilities charges collected,especially from the Olympic View and
Olympic Ridge developments,remain in the Belfair wastewater utility fund for future capital
improvements. Previously there has been no development to pay down debt,the County had to look at
other options. Richard presented a spreadsheet that showed about$3.3 million in expected expenses such
as replacing/adding a bladder,capital facility improvements,and the expansion of the spray field. The
plant was sized for full buildout. Loretta added there is a charge that is in the utility fund for future
capital. Richard shared that the lateral measurement is from the sewer system to the closest point of the
property line depending on the angle,adjacent,and how the property line runs. Cmmr.Neatherlin added
that the original capital facilities charge was$5,000 and was a short-term incentive to get connections.
Greg Sypnicki asked if the hookup money from current development in Belfair will go towards paying off
old debt? Is it possible there are other options that do not include increasing debt? Mark recommends the
Board do not utilize those funds to pay off debt but to retain those funds within the Belfair wastewater
facility and pay for upcoming capital improvements. In 2022 there will be over$300k of capital
improvements for the treatment side. As more customers hook up,capacity must be expanded. $600k has
been collected so far and another$500k is anticipated. Development will be occurring from now until
about 2029.
George Blush asked if now is a good time to incur more debt after coming through a pandemic that many
small businesses were forced to close? How will the rate go up for each unit? Mark answered the reason
the County petitioned the Department of Commerce to change the structure of the debt was so that it
would not go against the rate payers and would utilize.09 funds and REET funds instead.
Judy Scott asked if all$8 million will go towards the sewer extension and if there is any potential of rates
being raised? Mark answered the it is not the Board's intention to put the debt on rate payers and that is
why the change of structure to general obligation debt. The original plan received from legislature was
between$8 million and$12 million. $8 million is the maximum amount available from the Public Works
Board loan. The original plan was in concert with the construction of the freight corridor for"purple pipe"
reclaimed water pushed up north to the industrial area for an additional source of revenue. A letter was
issued to legislature today from the Commissioners encouraging allocating money to the freight corridor.
Loretta added that the loan is similar to a line of credit.
Brad Carey asked if the loan is locked in at.79%interest rate? What if the developer does not allow
easement to be placed on his tract of land? Would it be more expensive if it is not undeveloped land?
Mark answered that there are three options. If the project is moved forward quickly,the rate would be
.29%over a 20-year period. Next would be a rate of.54%over a 20-year period which would allow the
County to wait a few years to begin. Lastly,under the.79%rate there are options to extend the term to 26
years,22 years with partial deferral,or a 20-year payment schedule deferring loan payment until 2026.
Loretta shared if an easement is not acquired at this time and development occurred on that property the
developer would be required to,as a condition of development,follow that plan for extension.
Marilyn Corrigan asked if this is the correct location for the sewer in coordination with the Belfair UGA?
Mark answered yes,the goal is to control development to create urban zones and keep rural areas rural.
There is also money to expand or widen Highway 3 through that area. Loretta added that the Planned
Action Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)gives a refined look at what is developable and where.
FINANCIALS
Mark outlined the sources of revenue to pay for existing debt and the sewer expansion. The.09%sales tax
is a credit against the 6.5%state sales tax which does not result in a tax increase to the consumer. Under
the requirements associated with utilizing those funds it must be used to encourage overall economic
development and includes bridges,roads, domestic and industrial water facilities,and sanitary sewer
facilities. REET has two.25%tax, 111 quarter and 21 quarter. 1st quarter is the.25%tax upon all real
estate sales within the unincorporated area of the County and must be spent on the capital projects listed in
the Capital Facilities Plan of the Comprehensive Plan,housing relocation assistance to low-income
tenants,and for maintenance of capital assets. 2nd quarter also is the .25%tax upon all real estate sales
within the unincorporated area of the County and is a more restrictive list of eligible capital projects. For
example:planning,acquisition,construction,etc.for domestic water systems and sanitary sewer systems;
planning,construction,repair,improvement,etc.of parks;and planning,acquisition,construction,etc.for
affordable housing projects.
Mark shared a spreadsheet projecting the Sales&Use .09 funds revenues and expenditures by year. In
2020$878,401 was collected and in 2021 $1,028,114 was collected. The projected budget for 2022 is a
conservative$865k with a small increase of 2%per year. Commissioners requested to reserve 25%of the
previous year's expenditures as an operating fund/reserve to pay the State Auditor's Office,for internal
allocation of costs,the City of Shelton for sewer,the Economic Development Council,etc. In 2021,
$450k was transferred to pay old debt on the Belfair wastewater facility. For 2nd quarter REET funds,over
$2.1 million was collected in 2021 and almost$1.6 million was collected in 2020. The projection for 2022
is$1.5 million with a 2%increase per year. Items paid for from REET 2 funds include maintenance of
parks capital facilities,miscellaneous maintenance and repairs,capital improvements,parks capital
equipment,and transfers to Rustlewood and Belfair wastewater facility. This spreadsheet projects through
2033 when debt will be retired. In 2020,the Commissioners made a policy decision to reserve$400k per
year to be utilized for Belfair debt. At the end of 2022,$1.2 million will be in the restricted reserve
account. In 2027,the fund will have$2.8 million. At the end of 2027,debt will be pulled from the reserve
and not revenue. At this time,the Commissioners can decide to pay off the debt with those reserves. The
debt obligation for 2022 is$1,052,465.17;$800k will be paid from REET 2 and$252,465.14 will be paid
from.09 Sales&Use Tax. The Belfair debt has four components:2020A Limited Tax General Obligation
(LTGO)bond,2021 LTGO refinance,and two Department of Ecology(DOE)loans. There are no early
payoff penalties. The 2020A LTGO bond has a minimum five-year period and the 2021 LTGO has a ten-
day notification requirement. The DOE loans can also be paid of early. Amounts would need to be
revised for interest not incurred. This does not show new debt. The loan through the Public Works Board
would be an additional$191k to$243k on top of the$4.5 million depending on the structure of the loan.
Cmmr. Shutty added that the original loan was refinanced for a lower interest rate and the loan from the
Public Works Board would be even lower interest. Cmmr.Neatherlin added that the interest rate was as
high as 3.8%on the previous loan. Mark shared that the loan through Cashmere Valley Bank ranges from
1.6%in 2021 to 2.05%in 2030 when paid off. In 2026 it goes up to 2.5%. Paying the loan off early could
potentially save 3-years'worth of interest which could be potential savings of about$30k. Cmmr. Shutty
commended the Commission on managing the debt and gives credit to the Treasurer for managing the
process. Mark shared that the County received about$6.5 million in American Rescue Plan Act(ARPA)
dollars in 2021. Over$6 million was awarded. $1.7 million went to County departments and the rest went
to other entities. Another$6.5 million will be received in 2022 to be obligated by 2024 and spent by 2026.
Allowable projects include water,sewer,broadband,and infrastructure. Cmmr. Shutty added that ARPA
Rinds could be used to assist with capital needs for the sewer system. Connection fees will also need to be
clarified for expanded service area. Legislature is still in session and there may be the potential to capture
additional money for other projects and clarifying funding for the Belfair system. The County also needs
to look over bids to determine if this will move forward. Cmmr.Neatherlin added that whether or not this
should be done needs to be discussed.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Brad Carey asked the Commissioners to approve the extension. It is very rare for everything to be lined
up. Cheap money is available and there is a need to continue the sewer infrastructure whether it goes
down the state highway or through a large tract of land. Developers do not own the sewer trunk or
laterals,that is an asset that the tax and rate payers of the sewer district own. There is inexpensive money
and all sources of money that complies with the plans on moving Phase 3 forward. This complies with the
Growth Management Act and the Urban Growth Area(UGA)and prevents urban sprawl. The County
cannot lose on a deal like this.
Andrew Makar revisited his concerns. He understands Brad's view and does not necessarily disagree in
theory. In his observation,he does not want to leave money on the table. The County may own the actual
equipment,pipes,etc.but that development confers added value to property owners. Those property
owners,when they develop or sell to developers,will make a lot of money. Andrew asks that the County
doesn't rush into a decision and later say something was forgotten or overlooked.
Greg Sypnicki doesn't disagree with Brad either. Having the sewer extend to the other side of the railroad
tracks to pick up the subdivisions is really necessary. His concern is,in the past and traditionally,
development pays for development. Even if ARPA funds are used,which is better than extending debt,
however way the debt is paid if development doesn't invest in their own profit that sets a precedence.
Sometimes tax payers and politicians tend to be over generous with people who are connected and have a
lot of resources. If there is a lot of money to be made by adding the sewer and it increases property values
by at least as much as the sewer costs to put in.
Judy Scott concurs that a plan is needed to recoup loan money. As Cmmr.Neatherlin said,there really
isn't a plan and she would like to see a plan before any decisions are made.
David Overton shared that there are reoccurring themes: "we don't want any new debt on the facility".
When you decide not to take the funds that would pay down the debt and put them in a reserve account,
you are perpetuating the debt over time. The platitudes of no new debt,development paying for
development,or it was done at that time to incentivize growth,sound like election statements versus
policy statements. Utilities and governments shouldn't pick winners and losers. There has to be
partnership in how development is paid for and blind for who it is. There have been developments in
Belfair, in Shelton,in every UGA that have received municipal services. Those municipal services don't
recapture a portion of sales proceeds. There have been developments in Belfair that happened after the
sewer and sold. The County has ways to recapture and finance that the private sector doesn't. The County
takes risk,but has ways to mitigate that risk. David hopes to move past the statements that allude to him
because that sets a terrible precedence for the next project with any sewer or utility extension. This should
be decided based on the policies in place. The County should look in the future at code revisions to unify
its code language around sewers. He cautions against talking about individual projects that would benefit
from the trunk line extension.
Jeff Carey has been involved with the community and sewer development for 25 years. A uniform and
balanced developer-type policy is needed. This is not being executed blind to the developer. Jeff knows
from experience and what other developers have paid to extend trunks. The County is taking the approach
that if there is a downturn in the amount of funds, .09 or REET funds will be used. If that is true,it needs
to be made clear to the people. Why is there a$1.5 million lift station that pumps only about 200 gallons a
minute? In North Bay Case Inlet,the pump station in the RV Park that pumps 200 gallons a minute.
There is no way it costs$1.5 million to build that. That is not a good deal for the County. Crossing the
tracks at$1.2 million. For North Bay,a 3"sleeve was bore under Highway 3 at the widest part of the
highway by Allyn. Even with cost inflation,the price was no where close. A better deal is needed for rate
payers and the County if there is a downturn.
Brad Carey agrees with Jeff and understands this will be a competitive bid to get the best deal possible.
Mark recommends continuing the hearing for another 30 days to gather additional information.
Cmmr.Trask/Shutty moved and seconded to continue the public hearing on the proposed extension
of the Belfair Sewer to April 5,2022 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. N-nay; S-aye;T-
aye.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Cmmr.Neatherlin wants to have a comprehensive plan on what the County is doing with the sewer system
to bring to the public. New information and changes each week show that this is not correct and the right
numbers are not had. He is in favor of the sewer,but not in favor of paying. A mechanism to reclaim the
investment is needed before the County invests. The percentage rate for the line of credit is great if it
could be used to pay off older debts and get a lower percentage rate but that is not allowed. Technically
paying debt with REET would not increase taxes. However,once that money is used you can't use it
again. If there is a downturn,funds may come out of the General Fund which could mean layoffs. There
has been no scenario shown that this will bring the County into the positive. You don't get out of debt by
borrowing more money. A cost benefit analysis to show what that County will get is needed. Using
capital facility charges for things needed to fix in the future is understandable. This is to prevent taking on
more debt to fix them. Taking on more debt is not beneficial. 168 different people wrote in two things:
they don't want to take on more debt and developers should pay for development. Rick Krieger,a
developer,wrote"in response to extending the sewer system north onto Overton property on the backs of
current rate payers this is the most egregious action I've ever seen come out of Mason County in recent
history. You have already burdened us with the current sewer project over our objections which has never
finished i.e.extensions up side roads like Romance Hill where there are currently 35 residents not hooked
up to the sewer or the sewer treatment plant. As a landowner,owner of the Belfair urgent care building,
developer of Romance Hill,and owner of land I would like to be developed and connected to the sewer
system. I think this proposal burdens or borders on insanity. Over the past six months in coordination
with a developer,I've had discussions with Public Works on trying to get 70 to 90 lots of division
approved at the top of Romance Hill. In discussions with Public Works I would have to pay the extension
of the sewer line up Romance Hill which will eventually tie into the bypass. Why do you want to spend
taxpayer dollars on a sewer extension onto private owner's land all based on speculation? We are coming
into a time where development could slow down drastically over the next 10 years as costs rise,the
interest rates climb. Remember the interest inflation,interest rates that we saw in the 80's? Any
development north of town could come to a halt in five years and this could become a sinkhole. I'm
proposing 70 to 90 hookups in the near future as well as well as the current 35 existing unconnected
residents. That's 100 new connections and I cannot get the County to pay for the extension of the sewer
main. Now you want to extend that sewer main on future speculation? This proposal makes no sense.
Developers,for the most part,pay for utilities to be extended or they negotiate where there's a benefit to
all the parties. You really need to slow down and hire a business development consultant to review the
extension of the sewer system...". Calls have been received from bigger developers with the same
concerns and questions. This needs to be comprehensive. The County should not be discussing taking or
expending such large funds without a comprehensive plan,cost benefit analysis,or a structure to recoup
that money. He stands against moving this forward.
Cmmr.Trask shares that there is a lot to think about and study. There are mandates from the State that say
we have to extend or provide utilities and infrastructure within a UGA. Cmmr.Trask clarified that 85%of
what was paid for the original sewer lines in the original loan was by a grant,the County contracted out
the work,and the line is owned by the County. Information is still needed from Commerce. ARPA funds
and potential funding from legislature may be able to be used. She wants to ensure the right decision is
made for Mason County.
Cmmr. Shutty is in support of continuing the public hearing. Staff have proven that they are able to work
on complex issues and provide detailed responses. He is more than willing to continue to give staff time
to refine details,give updates,and receive more public input. There is a varied opinion on this and it is a
big decision for the County. The sewer system is a frustrating topic and he appreciates where Cmmr.
Neatherlin comes from. It is frustrating to not be able to solve this in a decade.The County is dealing with
markets,planning and development codes that need revised,and looking at debt overall. How can this
work for the County,for Belfair? Staff is doing a tremendous job figuring this out. The$87 rate increase
that was never intended is gone. Commerce was responsive. The Commission has worked hard to
restructure old debt. The existing loan was 3.8%. The new loan is 1.68%and can go up to 2.05%. The
Commission has been fiscally responsible on managing the debt of the Belfair sewer. We cannot be in a
holding pattern of not planning for the future. Last week action was taken on a Planned Action
Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)that helps plan for growth in the Belfair UGA. This is an
important step forward to address traffic issues. Development is being charged to offset some of those
costs. For the first time in County history,more is asked from developers who want to invest in our
community. This allows for the management of growth and to guide it out of critical environmental areas.
Cmmr.Neatherlin read an email from another developer in town and it is not a good idea to pit developers
against developers. We want to be open for business. Cmmr.Neatherlin spent a long time on the
Economic Development Council(EDC)and has had conversations with developers,seen prospect lists,
and the types of businesses that want to locate themselves in Mason County. The County has a lot of land
but doesn't have the necessary utilities—water,power,and sewer. We have an obligation to plan and
work collaboratively for these opportunities. If there is a policy of no new debt,we need to be thoughtful
about that. There is a difference between debt. The old sewer debt was not good debt. The potential for
financing through the Public Works Board is better debt. Municipal debt is an important topic. No new
debt jeopardizes the ability for projects that the community needs. Key takeaways should be that the
Commission has been fiscally responsible in managing the old debt,thoughtful about how to expand the
system and is done in a way to meet growth management goals,and that rate increases are no longer.
Cmmr.Neatherlin clarified that he did not speak with Mr. Krieger beforehand or after that letter was sent.
5. Adjournment—the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith,Cle of the Board
Kevin Shutty,thair
Sharon Trask,Vice-Chair
Randy eath r ommissioner